Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 01:46:57 -0400 From: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> To: Suleiman Souhlal <ssouhlal@freebsd.org>, Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> Cc: current@freebsd.org, fs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] IFS: Inode FileSystem Message-ID: <p06210238bec98dba5697@[128.113.24.47]> In-Reply-To: <0A6C1F19-A734-4EC8-BE97-2D000D189968@FreeBSD.org> References: <82ACAD58-B179-44E2-852F-60F25C0BBBC1@FreeBSD.org> <20050606033145.GA80739@www.portaone.com> <42A3D6CF.2000504@samsco.org> <0A6C1F19-A734-4EC8-BE97-2D000D189968@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 1:05 AM -0400 6/6/05, Suleiman Souhlal wrote: > >On Jun 6, 2005, at 12:53 AM, Scott Long wrote: > >>It's a huge win for CPU overhead in the filesystem, especially >>when we start talking about increasing the size of m_links >>field and possibly going 64-bit inode numbers. > >Talking about going to 64-bit inode numbers, how would we deal >with the change in stat(2)? By making some sort of incompatible change to stat(2). This has been discussed from time-to-time. It's another change that I would have liked to have seen (at least for the stat routines) in 6.0, but right now I suspect it will not happen until 7.0. -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?p06210238bec98dba5697>